About

We want to encourage and support intellectual discussions, not memes or one sentence responses. Clear, polite and well-written response should be what is upvoted, whether you agree with the opinion or not.

Rules

» Short first-level responses to threads (less than 180 characters) are deleted automatically.

» Do not make threads that ask for a list or ranking of films, directors or books. ("What's your favorite [blank]"?) This includes threads asking for recommendations.

» Make sure your thread can support a discussion. A good thread begins with more than one paragraph.

» Pointless or silly threads and comments will be removed.

» All posts on specific films are assumed to be spoiler filled. Spoilers in more general threads must be tagged. (See instructions below.)

» Make sure a subject or film you're posting about hasn't been discussed recently.

» Don't make threads about television shows.

» Do not post links without additional text. If the link was removed, would it be a good thread?

» Linking your blog, article, website, video channel and so forth is permitted so long as the above rule is being followed.

» Consider whether your thread is better suited for another subreddit. (e.g., threads asking our readers to help the OP remember a movie they forgot are best suited for /r/TipOfMyTongue, etc)

Spoiler Tags

» If you are posting in a discussion thread about a particular movie, then any spoilers about that movie do not need to be tagged in the thread. But mentioning a spoiler from another movie needs to be tagged so it won't be ruined for anybody.

Hey guys, No Country For Old Men is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's villain, Anton Chigurh, is one of the greatest singular villains of our generation; there is a lot of speculation about the meaning of the film. However, that is a very lengthy topic so I thought I'd focus on explaining some of the more controversial aspects.

First let me explain the role of the villain Anton. What Anton is not is a supernatural personification of death like in Ingmar Bergman’s the seventh seal. I think this is a common misconception; he is however an incredibly arrogant and incredibly talented killer. He has a god-complex, you can see this in scenes such as when he kills Wells and then speaks to Moss over the phone, he says to Wells regarding the money “it will be brought to me and placed at my feet” this is something only kings would say and regarding murdering Moss’ wife he says with frustration, as to Moss not understanding how Chigurh knows this will all play out, “it doesn’t matter where she is”.

Anton believes he is an entity of fate. He believes he knows how things will go and only he moves through and directs fate. The best scene to understand this is in the Coin Toss scene, with the gas station attendant. He explains that he travelled from 1958 just like the coin did, it’s through the coin toss that we understand part of his twisted moral obligation, his only form of mercy is a coin toss, like a coin toss no one but god, fate or someone who could see the future can predict the coins outcome, it’s his only fair method of releasing someone, by allowing fate to decide. Fate brought you to him; Anton judges you and only fate can release you.

Anyone who “sees” Anton, by this he means comes into his path of destiny, is liable, and only by his determination, are they allowed to live or die. Anyone who contests him has to die and anyone that denies liability must be tried by fate through a coin toss.

The ending is a very important part of the movie because there we see that he is not supernatural (for ambiguity purposes: I’m not referring to the fact that he can be injured). When Carla Jean Moss refuses to call the coin she contests him by claiming no liability and refuses to select, normally he still makes the person call the coin however she does not. Anton kills her; however this causes disruptive feelings evidence by him looking back in the rear view mirror. I think he is questioning his “rule of life” and he falls out of his path of destiny into another one that he couldn’t predict or understand.

Anton is then forced to get help from two young boys who he pays $100 for one of their shirts which he uses to wrap his arm. This action shows Anton passing into the age of an old man by requiring the help of the young and likewise corrupting the young boys with money and asking them to lie about the crime scene and say they never saw him. As the boys break out into an argument Anton walks off.

This is one of the most brilliant scenes of the movie because in just a ten minute period the Coen Brothers concisely defined and completed the nature of their villain.

Anton’s injury and implied fall denies the theory of a supernatural existence. The theme of the movie is reinforced by showing the corruption of the young kids, but Anton escapes and his archetype of unstoppable evil remains.

This is a representation of an outlook on how evil exists. As simple of an act as supporting evil by giving your shirt, for money and silence, allows evil to continue only by complete denial of engaging in it’s world, like Carla Jean, can stop it from existing, and ignorance does not absolve you from actions and consequences that could return.

The Dreams

The next scene shows Ed Tom Bell, after recently retiring from sheriff’s duty he’s not sure what he wants to do today, he then tells the woman he is with about his dreams he had last night.

"Alright then. Two of 'em. Both had my father in 'em . It's peculiar. I'm older now then he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember too well but it was about meeting him in town somewhere, he's gonna give me some money. I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin' through the mountains of a night. Goin' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on goin'. Never said nothin' goin' by. He just rode on past... and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up..."

The first dream:

This dream has some ambiguity, it’s really not clear when he says “I think I lost it” if he is referring to the money or to not remembering the rest of the dream. I assumed it’s the money.

My first thoughts on this dream were that the money represents the riches of the old generation being lost on the new generation.

However, recently I’ve started thinking that the money represents the corruption and wrong doings of the old generation being transferred into the new generation. I’ve decided on the later because of the proximity to the previous scene where Anton gives the kids money corrupting them. This type of action, having two characters talking/doing similar things, was used throughout the film to create parallels between the characters.

Example of the parallel:
Such as in one of the first scenes with Anton he kills the man with the bolt-action air pistol, he says to the man “hold still” and looking as though he is about to bless the man he takes his life. This scene is in parallel to when Moss is hunting the deer in his first scene and while having the deer in his scope he says “hold still”.

The second dream seems to be the more important dream.

His father is carrying the fire ahead through the night and cold. Fire representing hope, and going on ahead meaning the future; the night and the cold representing the darkness of the world.

He says the fire had the light of the moon in it, the only natural source of light at night-time. The fact that the moon is natural light may mean that the fire or hope is something natural, and since his father is carrying it for him this may suggest human nature being passed down from person to person. Hope is something that must be passed down for our future generations to survive. Take for instance the adage “a society grows great when old men plant seeds whose shade they know they shall never sit in”.

This fire can only continue if someone rides ahead in the night to build a fire for when you get deep into the cold and night.

Bell faces the cold and night in his interior struggle to be a part of the world when he re-enters the old crime scene, Anton isn’t there, but it’s the interior evil of Anton that Bell is imagining, before entering he pulls his gun, something he hadn’t done before, this suggests as an old man he is re-entering the young mans world, saying like he mentioned earlier in the film “Ok, I’ll be a part of this world”. However he doesn’t see Anton, but the fear of the situation and the events of chasing this criminal have enough affect to make him retire.

A common question of the film.

Why don’t the Coen Brothers show the death of Moss?

Most of my friends were really annoyed by this and at this point, it’s important to understand that Tommy Lee is actually the main character of the book and I don’t believe it’s ever known how Moss dies. But you might be saying people add and change things all the time isn’t it more exciting to see the fight play out? Yeah it might be more exciting, but this is actually brilliant editing, it supports the archetype of the villain. By not showing his death and forcing you to assume Moss is the dead man in the pool the scene greatly reinforces the arrogance and supernatural appearance of Anton. Additionally I don’t believe this movie was a huge budget so they may have done it because of budget constraints.

Anton is then forced to get help from two young boys who he pays $100 for one of their shirts which he uses to wrap his arm. This action shows Anton passing into the age of an old man by requiring the help of the young and likewise corrupting the young boys with money and asking them to lie about the crime scene and say they never saw him.

Also note that this is exactly the same that Moss did earlier in the film before he passes the border. Chigurh is on the same level as his prey now. Also another one of the parallels you mentioned.

Anyway, great post. I'd also like to say that apart from the amazing writing for me it is also an absolute masterpiece in creating tension, the scenes in the hotel are almost unbearable. That they did so without the use of music is all the more remarkable.

I don't wanna go on too much because I know I'll end up rambling and don't have the technical knowledge to put it all in words, but for me personally this is not only clearly the best film of its decade but my favorite film since Fanny and Alexander in 1982. I don't think there is a single step where it falters.

I'm going to agree with the first dream analysis, the movie was about the corrupting force that money has on the world. Much like the Pardoners tale in chaucers canterbury tales, the people who seek money for greed end up dying, because it is sinful and tempting.

However I'm going to disagree with the analysis of the second dream. I've wrote about it on reddit somewhere before but i'll copy pasta it:

The dream at the end is saying that he's ready for death. The importance is in the father, who is said to be the "younger man." Which means that in a sense he's outlived his father, had a full life. The second one they're on horseback in the night going through a mountain pass, and its cold. and tommy says "and he rode past me, and kept going never said nothing." This is EXTREMELY important. His father died, but it was abrupt and he didn't get a final talk with him, probably why when he dreams on death he dreams of his father. "he had his blanket rapped around him, his head down." Once more references to death, its cold, its night (in day archetypes this represents death) and its winter (seasonal archetype for death). But he's carrying fire, "and i seen it by the light" now in this wilderness and cold this shows that there is a chance for comfort and warmth, held by his father. "and in the dream i knew that he was going on ahead" once more referencing his fathers death. "and he was fixing to make a fire out there in all that darkness" showing that the father is waiting for the son in "afterlife". and there will be comfort there for him. "And I knew that whenever i got there he'd be there." So basically it's ok to die, because there's comfort in it.
So after all the crazy shit he's seen, all the unhappiness of the life of this "old man." He's having to come to grips with all the death that surrounds him, and indeed his own death. It's a sense of closure for him, moving on. Him being retired at this point also shows this (in a sense of closure from the job and death).
I'm not saying this is right, but that's the best i could think up given my limited knowledge.

i think it's worth pointing out that the portrayal of violence changes over the course of the movie. at the beginning, anton is explicitly shown strangling the police officer and killing the guy with the cattle gun. towards the end of the movie, the only real indications that he killed the wife that wouldn't call his coin were the dialogue and how he checked his boots (presumably for blood) when leaving the house. it goes from explicit to implicit violence. i'm not sure what that's supposed to imply, but to me it was an obvious transition in style.

It could just be that we are suitably familiarised with the modus operandi of Chigurh in the earlier scenes of the film, and the Coen Brothers didn't think it necessary to maintain the level of on-screen violence. I think if more of the killings were left unseen and ambiguous we wouldn't grasp the full scope of Antons evil, but show more and the film would begin to devolve into a old-fashioned murderous rampage (albeit an aesthetically pleasing one).

it might fit in with Anton's character. killing the deputy was quite a feat; he was clearly proud of it, and who wouldn't be? cop arrests you, so you escape your handcuffs and garrote him while he isn't looking? that takes some precision. if you're Anton Chigurh you're feeling cocky and validated. walking into the guy's office and shooting him in the face, then enigmatically sparing his assistant? good one Anton, you just fucked with the status quo and showed the absurdity of modern life! you crazy badass!

on the other hand, killing a defenseless young woman in her home out of frustration because she refused to adhere to your world view? that's the kind of thing you just get over with and sweep under the rug. it's the same to a lesser extent with Carter Wells. Anton ambushed him, sure, but he lost the satisfaction of a coin flip when Moss called.

What Anton is not is a supernatural personification of death like in Ingmar Bergman’s the seventh seal. I think this is a common misconception

This is very early in your analysis and is a very strong claim, but you offer absolutely no counterargument against it. What makes you so certain this this is a misconception? I'm not saying that I believe Anton is a personification of death, but you have to support your claims, especially ones so certain as this.

If anything, I see him as a symbol of the nihilistic violence that the drug trade is bringing to the south. He's a naturalistic force straight out of Jack London or Steven Crane. There is no reasoning with it, there is no "I don't deserve this," there's just an arbitrary determination like a coin toss. You die or you don't, just like the guy in London's "To Build a Fire."

I disagree with the following: "Anton believes he is an entity of fate. He believes he knows how things will go and only he moves through and directs fate." Specifically, that Anton believes he directs fate. He doesn't determine the result of the coin-toss, he just puts the toss in motion. To me, he's not an agent. In fact, agency and fate are pretty much mutually exclusive terms.

I wasn't sure if it was in the book or not, I've never read it, but I guess the question could be changed to: they add new things in adaptations all the time what reasons did they have to not show the death of Moss? again the book doesn't, but to me it also seems there are artistic qualities of not showing his death.

Ok read it, apparently the book does talk about how he dies so then my interpretation is valid as an argument to why it wasn't done in the movie other than the reasons the writer of the article gives. That article just gives this guys interpretation, which is really great considering he's read the book, thanks for the read.

I would think a lot of what the original author intended to come across might have been unclear or left out of a film adaptation. If you really want to get in depth with a character like this, I would think the book would be the only viable way...

Don't forget Blood Meridian. It actually kind of ties into the lore and universe of NCFOM. Sheriff Bell reminisces about a country where a sheriff can work without carrying a pistol - but Blood Meridian shows that this relatively peaceful time was bought & paid for with the genocide of entire villages of Native Americans. If you are as fascinated with the storytelling as it seems, you need to read more McCarthy. He's without a doubt my favorite living author...
Edit: You think Chigur was bad, wait til you meet Judge Holden :/

I've heard James Franco wants to do it after he wraps up As I Lay Dying (Faulkner) and Child of God (McCarthy). The fact that he specifically wants to do the movie and clearly likes Southern literature, I have to believe he would do it justice.

That's "All the Pretty Horses", "The Crossing", and "Cities of the Plain". They stand alone on their own but if you can read them in the order above a few more things will make sense. Basically there are 2 protagonists who are explored seperately in the first two and meet for the duration of the final novel in "Cities of the Plain".

I read the book first in 2006. I went online to see what others thought of this harrowing book and saw that it was being made into a film. 'Man, that'll be difficult and dark, I thought'. Then I saw it was the Coens and was intrigued. They did superbly.

Anton believes he is an entity of fate. He believes he knows how things will go and only he moves through and directs fate. The best scene to understand this is in the Coin Toss scene, with the gas station attendant.

The parallels here are coincidence, sure, but the games the killers play and the dreams involved add an extra element to the storyline that I enjoy. The killers don't always kill on a whim, and they may or may not strike based on the rules of the game, so you can't be sure what they will do.

Twin Peaks is a fantastic show. But I have not seen the second season, I guess, I've been putting it off because I don't want it to be over, and I don't know how I'll like it compared to the first season.

In reply to the OT, I have a few things to say about the style of Moss' death/reveal sequence. I've been wondering about this for a while, in movies like Goodfella's when Ray Liotta beats that guy up with his revolver (And of course other films do this to, but for some reason I cannot put a name to them), they seem to be shot so distinctively. Wide angle lenses, color schemes, and perhaps the context and the way the characters are positioned in the frame seem to be alluding to the concept of the American Dream. In NCFOM, Moss' post-death scene is shot so simplistic and wide-angled that I suspect that it is supposed to show how mundane, or normal it would look when seen from the eyes of a passerby. In this respect, perhaps, the Coen Brothers are trying to make a point on the reality of brutal violence by shooting it in such a starkly dull, but visually colorful way.

It definitely isn't shot like a first year film student (Or the Hunger Games [I fucking hated the Hunger Games]) where everything is shot urgently, and close up. Macro-shot city, if you will.

I like your points on Anton but I've always seen him as violence personified (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that its another interesting point that could be included). He ultimately has no alliances, killing whoever fate dictates needs to die. The level of violence he brings to the table is not something the old generation is used to. Anton is a harbinger of modern violence.

I always got the sense, that he's no different from any other callous murderer throughout the ages. The No country for old men refers to the fact that America is not for the old, they can't handle the violence that they could handle when they were young.
That's why the 19th century story of the Indian killing is told, violence has always existed, probably was even worse back in the day, but as we get old we romanticise about the past, thinking it was safer and more peaceful when historically, obviously, it wasn't.

I don't believe that the two are similar at all. Chigurh is a like a force of nature in No Country in that he can't be stopped. His character in Skyfall is more of a representation of how a person's soul can be corrupted. In Skyfall he is supposed to represent the path that Bond could have taken should he have 'chosen to go to the dark side' instead of siding with his country. Bardem's character in Skyfall is simply a utility to provide more depth to Bond's character.

I'm surprised that the death of Moss is a common question. I thought it was a brilliant touch of editing, as you say. It was a very unique way of portraying his demise and allowing the viewer to move forward, as the juicy stuff was still to come.

I think rather than fate, which in the majority of interpretations is ephemeral yes but ultimately predetermined and rigid, Anton represents the other side of the coin (clever, eh?) as an embodiment of uncertainty. Consider Rampart's character, he's a famous actor that if I were a director would try to make the most of his talent via ample screen time (a la Zombieland), however, Anton goes against our preconceived notions and murders him almost immediately after his introduction. The refusal to call the coin is perfect; walking uncertainty falling victim to a refusal to accept the odds, an uncertain event experienced by an uncertain character. By similar token, the car crash is indicative of Anton's mortality. Not mortality in the sense of physical being, but of metaphysical being. I totally agree that Chigurh walks through the film as this godlike force, impacting the narrative by his unpredictable (again, uncertainty) actions, but in the car crash (the least anticipated part of the film) the universe affects him, proving his existence is indicative of his nature. He insists upon himself. He makes the viewer question each plot turn by introducing uncertainty. I feel that the ambivalence of the two boys speaks for the tone of the entire film, rather than presenting any sort of "moral."

Also, as soon as Ed Tom finishes his explaination of the dreams there is silence and quietly in the backround a clock is ticking. I'd guess it was intentional and it is in keeping with the themes of inevitable death.

The biggest reason that McCarthy decides not to depict the death of Llewellyn is that he's not the protagonist.

While we follow his story, it is ultimately the story of Sheriff Tom Bell -- he is our protagonist. It is more obvious in the book, as there are many long passages of his narration, but it is his story.